What happened on Non-Verbal?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
This is rarely ever the case. Practicuarly the whole peer group is tutored anyway and all of the children that I know, across many of the grammar schools, including my son, are far from struggling! It just gives them familiarisation with the papers. You definitely have to have good academic ability in the first place. It is very seldom that a non-grammar ability child is reached to great heights from tutoring alone. Usually they fail the test and that is what it's there for.tremplus wrote: 2. The same must apply to tutoring as this is giving the test results a false impression of the childs ability if they have learnt the VR/NonVR methods parrot fashion. If you want to spend a lot of money on a tutor, for your child to then spend the next 5/7 years at the bottom of the class and feeling that they are the worse in their peer group because they were sneaked through a test then is this worth it?.
-
theresathought
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:20 pm
NVR
I coached both DD (3 years ago) and DS (this year) in NVR. DD and I were about the same level when we did the papers (meaning if she didn't know it - I usually had to look it up in the answers), and she went on to squeak into Newstead (VR was very strong). When I did the NVR with DS this year it seemed harder for both of us. I was trying to explain the harder ones in depth, and I found it very illogical. Often both of us could find more than one thread or difference. He failed it (105) but got full marks in VR and 135 or thereabouts in the Maths. I think we were both over analytical whereas DD went for the obvious. Bear in mind that I passed these papers both for an 11+ and for a superselective myself back in the dark ages, and also got into MENSA (IQ 157) doing a similar paper (VR/NVR). DS's maths is way better than DD's.
The pattern among his male schoolfriends was the same - great maths/bad NVR.
I think my conclusions (and I know they are controversial, and don't want to start a flame war) are that:
NVR is not a good indicator of maths ability in boys. So what is it for?
NVR (Kent) this year was harder than 3 years ago and has skewed the proportions of strong maths candidates. That will affect the strengths/weaknesses of the intake relative to those already in Year 9 and above. Y7 teachers - check your CATS and YELLIS scores in October and I think you will agree.
Kent are going to lose some talented grammar quality boys by ignoring the benefits of aggregation - not everyone has the time or the nous to appeal. DD failed the NWKent Maths by one mark 3 years ago, but Wilmington wrote to her and said that they would still be interested because she had done so well in English/VR. That flexibility has now gone.
The pattern among his male schoolfriends was the same - great maths/bad NVR.
I think my conclusions (and I know they are controversial, and don't want to start a flame war) are that:
NVR is not a good indicator of maths ability in boys. So what is it for?
NVR (Kent) this year was harder than 3 years ago and has skewed the proportions of strong maths candidates. That will affect the strengths/weaknesses of the intake relative to those already in Year 9 and above. Y7 teachers - check your CATS and YELLIS scores in October and I think you will agree.
Kent are going to lose some talented grammar quality boys by ignoring the benefits of aggregation - not everyone has the time or the nous to appeal. DD failed the NWKent Maths by one mark 3 years ago, but Wilmington wrote to her and said that they would still be interested because she had done so well in English/VR. That flexibility has now gone.
This certainly seems to be the case in my DD's school. Generally if a child is in both the top groups, they are pretty much guaranteed a grammar school place. However, this year a staggering six children in top, top have failed (another two also failed but got through on HT appeal). Of those total eight children, seven were boys and five of the boys still did not get through. I have just been speaking to the dad of one of the brightest boys in the year group, a Judd dead cert, and he only just scraped through and will probably go to TWBG.
NVR is used to test a students ability to adapt to a wide range of new subjects and materials - ie secondary school! There is a thread on this on the NVR section of this site.
As for a bright boy being a Judd cert, I'm sure this boy will do well wherever he ends up. Maybe the 11+ can indicate that although one can be very bright within a normal classroom situation, they may not cope so well when under the pressure. He may thrive better at TWBG, rather than a more pressurised environment at Judd.
As for a bright boy being a Judd cert, I'm sure this boy will do well wherever he ends up. Maybe the 11+ can indicate that although one can be very bright within a normal classroom situation, they may not cope so well when under the pressure. He may thrive better at TWBG, rather than a more pressurised environment at Judd.
Forgive me if I am repeating someone else, but I have not read all four pages of this thread in detail. However, the original post asked if everyone was getting lower scores in general in NVR.
If that was is the case, something has gone wrong with the standardisation, or else children in Kent are just bad at NVR relative to the UK population as whole (unlikely I would think!!).
As the scores are standardised, if you were to plot out the scores of all children in Kent you would roughly get a normal distribution curve. There would be identical proportions of candidates getting similar scores in all the three tests (NVR, maths, VR) unless they doled out a paper that was easy that everyone got a raw score of 100%.
Now it is possible that if everyone found the paper hard, that the raw scores might all be much lower on NVR than on the other papers, but it is not possible for standardised scores on any one paper to be in general much lower than on the other papers. There seems to be a myth about this each year. People use it to feel better about low scores / fails on particular papers - "oh it was a much harder paper than usual / than the other papers". Unfortunately, not true.
If that was is the case, something has gone wrong with the standardisation, or else children in Kent are just bad at NVR relative to the UK population as whole (unlikely I would think!!).
As the scores are standardised, if you were to plot out the scores of all children in Kent you would roughly get a normal distribution curve. There would be identical proportions of candidates getting similar scores in all the three tests (NVR, maths, VR) unless they doled out a paper that was easy that everyone got a raw score of 100%.
Now it is possible that if everyone found the paper hard, that the raw scores might all be much lower on NVR than on the other papers, but it is not possible for standardised scores on any one paper to be in general much lower than on the other papers. There seems to be a myth about this each year. People use it to feel better about low scores / fails on particular papers - "oh it was a much harder paper than usual / than the other papers". Unfortunately, not true.
I see what you're saying. However, it does seem strange that so many children did unexpectedly badly. I am aware of several at my DS's school getting very high scores in Maths and Verbal (over 138 in each) , but then failing NVR by 1 or 2 marks. It is odd that some can get a total score over 390, but have failed! - not such an issue if your headteacher was prepared to support an appeal, but ours refused totally and it has caused a lot of upset.
Interestingly, I have been told that there were a lot of last minute applications to St Olave's and that the total applications there was higher this year - possibly partly because a lot of good maths boys did badly in the Kent tests i wonder?
Interestingly, I have been told that there were a lot of last minute applications to St Olave's and that the total applications there was higher this year - possibly partly because a lot of good maths boys did badly in the Kent tests i wonder?
How many children did so well in maths and vr but failed NVR at your school? It could just be an insignificant number and no connection between the cases, but yet a strange feeling coincidence for those involved.
Or there could be some other reason. How many of them were there? Did they all share the same tutor do you know?
Or there could be some other reason. How many of them were there? Did they all share the same tutor do you know?
There is enough evidence on this forum, on many threads, that support the challenging NVR this year. Lots of parents have mentioned that their child who would normally do very well in NV, messed up in the 11 plus exam. More than a coincidence I think. The 140 top scores for maths was about 80% Verbal 75% and the NV about 70% (the evidence for this is on a previous thread).